Who speaks for all of us?

Annual Oscar nominations are a reminder that the idea of representation still isn’t taken as seriously as it should

I must admit to a complete lack of knowledge when it comes to India’s many regional film industries. I am somewhat familiar with where great cinema comes from (the South, obviously, and as far away from Juhu or Versova as possible) but I wouldn’t be able to make specific comments about the biggest films of the past decade or so. I probably would have paid more attention if access to anything other than Hindi cinema was easier while I was growing up, but the Internet wasn’t around, so I can only blame my lack of interest on the world being smaller then.

What I do take an interest in, perversely I suppose, is what India chooses to officially pick as representative of the country’s best efforts whenever annual calls for Oscar nominations are put forth. ‘This is the best we can do!’ their choices proclaim, year after year, and I am almost always compelled to ask, ‘Really? There was nothing better?’

It works almost like clockwork by now, which may sound like a compliment but isn’t. Everyone knows the drill: There will be speculative columns published by a few film journalists, suggestive comments by rabid fans online, and an ultimate official choice that lets everyone down. This is followed by head-scratching or outrage, sometimes provoked by the sheer obtuseness on display (Eklavya: The Royal Guard, and Barfi! were supposedly the best we could do in 2007 and 2012, respectively), and sometimes because the whole exercise seems almost deliberate. It’s as if the powers that be go out of their way to sabotage a country’s chances. To talk about political and vested interests is easy, but we shouldn’t dismiss old-fashioned stupidity either.

Compare our offerings with just some of the films that have won in recent years—The Great Beauty (Italy), Amour (Austria), The Lives of Others (Germany), Roma (Mexico) — and the Oscars begin to resemble a version of the Olympics, that other global competition where we rarely win anything, and not because our sportspeople aren’t capable.

For those who have been paying attention to this topic, this year’s in-house drama was unsurprising. Many believed there was an obvious potential winner, and watched in horror as the film was sidelined without an explanation. There could have been valid reasons for the exclusion, of course, because it’s not as if we are all aware of what the nomination process entails, but no one was told what those reasons were. It was the dismissal of popular wisdom by a bunch of strangers in a room that was so galling; and that was before everyone found out that the jury’s citation had begun by describing Indian women as ‘a strange mixture of submission and dominance.’

Who are these men and how do they speak for a country? Are the final choices vetted by an independent body before being announced? Do we get to figure out if ties between producers and politicians exist? These aren’t exactly far-fetched questions in a democracy, because the arts are, or should be, treated as an essential aspect of our culture. Then again, maybe I’m missing something obvious, what with my not being a filmmaker, or part of the industry. Maybe these annual choices are strategic and well thought-out, made by people who know best. What I can’t seem to shake is the notion that someone always benefits from these choices, and it’s never the artists who should.

I acknowledge that the fuss will be deemed embarrassing if India’s choice someday wins an Oscar. Until that day comes, however, I believe we should encourage the act of questioning because it appears to have been snuffed out over the past decade. There has to be an overhaul of how bodies in charge of putting together nominations for anything are empowered. There should be an insistence on transparency, and discussions about representation, because these issues matter not just to us but to those who come after us. At the very least, there should be someone at hand to tell us why one film is chosen over another in as simple a manner as possible, because the usual arguments about aesthetics and subjectivity don’t work when the act of representation involves a country as vast and diverse as this one.

Having said that, I am aware of how dated the notion of transparency has become. It’s because we are complacent. Why will someone tell us about a movie in a country where even the lynching of citizens no longer merits a press conference?

When he isn’t ranting about all things Mumbai, Lindsay Pereira can be almost sweet. He tweets @lindsaypereira
Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com
The views expressed in this column are the individual’s and don’t represent those of the paper.

"Exciting news! Mid-day is now on WhatsApp Channels Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!